Skip to main content

The Difference: A Dynamic Earth!

When creationists want to awe a credulous audience, preferably one in a church with limited education, they employ a variety of methods. One method is by trotting out one credentialed person to impress the audience with the fact that they have a Ph.D. or some other advanced degree; the person in question is usually old and may not even be a scientist, but they wave their doctorate around as though it makes them qualified to speak on DNA or geology. Often this scientist, generally well-spoken, employs another favored method in support of their rickety case. They will bring forth a natural process and say that if it is true, then the earth could not possibly be older than six thousand years because the phenomena would not exist as it currently does. One such example comes to us courtesy of the Creation Moments organization, which provides daily broadcasts of some example or another that either purports to “disprove” evolution or shed light on the glory of Creation as they see it. In a broadcast recorded as “Simple Math, Hard Questions,” the anonymous author states that, given the rate of erosion, the earth cannot possibly be old, for the mountains would have long ago worn down into nothing.

They begin by asserting that “evolutionists” believe things that modern scientists simply do not believe, proceed to skewer this straw man and then shake their heads that anyone can believe this notion. The problem is, of course, that no one does. What they assert simply isn’t true. They say that “we are also told that the last mountain building activity took place about 65 million years ago.” Who in the world told them that? The Himalayas are a relatively recent mountain range, in the scale of geological time, the result of the collision of the Indian sub-continent with the rest of Asia. They are still rising! By contrast, the Appalachian Mountains of the Eastern United States stopped rising a long time ago, and have greatly eroded since their peak. The notion that, as the young-earth creationists assert, given the rate of erosion, all the continents should have worn down to sea level after 14 million years only makes sense to the creationist. No “evolutionist”--or perhaps we should say “sane scientist”--would agree with some of the propositions the creationist attributes to him. In the creationist mind the world is stable. Organisms don’t evolve; they exist much as they always did. In the creationist mind (unless they’re called upon to do some mental gymnastics to justify Noah’s Flood as possible), the continents are pretty much as they’ve always been.
           
The problem, at least for the creationist, is that the world is not stable, it is dynamic! Organisms evolve, continents move, islands form, mountains rise and erode away over the course of earth’s roughly 4.5 billion years of existence. Creationists can only make their bizarre scenarios sound plausible in contrast to the evolutionary straw-men that they themselves have cut out of whole cloth. The math may be “simple”, but the questions are inane.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Unanswerable Questions" for Evolution Part One

Creation Ministries International has launched a new initiative, which seems a lot like all the other creationists blitzkriegs before it. With the wonderfully creative tagline of "Question Evolution", CMI intends to challenge "evolutionists" and their "indoctrination" of high school students with the supposed dogma of evolution. They also aim to  cut the population of atheists by half , presumably by challenging the "faith" that every atheist (and only atheists, no "real Christians") is supposed to hold in Darwin's great idea. The main thrust of this is a tract with fifteen "unanswerable" questions for evolutionists. I'm done putting quotation marks around the word, evolutionists; from here on out I ask my readers to recognize that it is a creationist term that is about as silly as calling someone a general relativist (accepts general relativity) or germist (for accepting germ theory). Regardless, CMI seems just as i...

What Creationists Don't Understand

There are quite a number of concepts that one could successfully argue that creationists fail to understand; whether this is out of a simple lack of knowledge or willful ignorance is hard to say and certainly can't be generalized to every creationist. Some, the everyday creationist, I would like to think simply haven't been exposed to the evidence. Others, the holders of Ph.D's in various fields, especially in the sciences, who happily reject evolutionary theory are willfully ignorant (John Whitmore comes to mind). But I think there is one idea that creationists of all stripes simply fail to understand; evolution is based on solid, visible evidence. Evolution is not some tenant of a "science religion" that descended down to Darwin from on high, it is an explanatory framework based on quite a lot of facts and mountains of evidence. It is evidence that leads to the conclusions of evolution, that life changes over time and, given the long history of the earth, all ...

The Absurdity/Agony of War

Science writer Mary Roach is never one to shy away from parts of science that verge on the absurd, as anyone who has read any of her books surely knows. I'd read two of her previous books, and been enchanted enough by Roach's unique combination of endless curiosity and a wry sense of humor that I rushed to lay my hands on her newest book. Grunt: The Curious Science of Humans at War will not fail in living up to the expectations that fans of her work will bring. Those who have never read her before will be hard-pressed to put down a book that I finished in a few short days.  The real joy of reading something by Mary Roach is her talent for seeking out strange areas of science that a reader might never have known about. As an investigator, she answers questions you never knew you had. Her newest work   is no exception. We discover, for instance, how the military tests the ability of a fighter jet to survive a mid-air collision with a large bird--by firing a dead chicken...